text:
Why do the transponders introduce codes instead of using aircraft registration numbers?
(A non-pilot here, just a Aviation.SE reader, recently into listening to ATC. I am wondering...)
Why do the transponders use their own codes? (squawk) It seems to me, it would be safer and less of a burden, if each aircraft programmed their own registration number into the transponder and everyone used that?

There are other uses for the transponder, such as squawking 1200 when flying VFR, 7500 for a hijacking, 7600 for comms failure, and 7700 for an emergency. Also, there are only 4096 unique transponder codes, and something like 32^5 possible registration codes. Mode-S transponders do send a unqiuely identifying number with the interrogation data though.

Transponder technologies were developed in the 1950s.  Technical limitations drove some of the choices made.  Now apply compatibility arguments for several decades.

Aircraft are assigned a unique mode S ID when they are registered. That code has to be programmed into the transponder and ADS-B unit during installation. That's how flightradar24 knows the registration. For why the squawk codes are still used see this question

A transponder code says much more than just the aircraft registration. Knowing the registration really doesn't help the controller - though I guess they could cross reference it and find out the type of aircraft. But a transponder code can tell them about the flight - whether they're VFR, which sector they're working with and so on. For example, I fly next to some very busy airspace - they have a "listening squawk" that aircraft can switch to which tells everyone with RADAR that they're an uncontrolled VFR flight listening on xxxx frequency. All without taking up a single bit of radio time :)

@mins, I guess the best answer is the comment by BowlOfRed, but voretaq7's answer has also some merit for mentioning some more context.

Actually what you are asking for exists, mode S transponders can broadcast the aircraft ID (tail number) or the flight ID, as you suggest.

To expand upon voretaq7's answer, understanding the history and evolution of transponders can more deeply explain why this is the way it is (for now).
When Allied (US/UK/Others) WWII planes returned from combat missions over Germany and mainland Europe, the (brand new technology) radar controllers had no way of knowing "who" the aircraft were. To solve this problem, aircraft began carrying an electronic box that could transmit a radio signal automatically in order to identify themselves. This system was the original IFF (Identification: Friend or Foe).
This piece of electronic wizardry could be set on the ground by crew members, prior to departure, using an 8-position dial numbered from 0-7. The box would receive a transmission signal from the ground, and then transmit a reply of two bursts of energy per cycle: the first signal was the "I'm beginning my transmission" signal (a slightly louder burst of energy), and the next signal was delayed a specific amount of nano-seconds to match the frequency wavelength (and would be slightly lower in intensity).  If the transmitter was set to 0, the delay was nothing. That is, the second burst would be transmitted on the next "instance" following the begin-transmission burst. If set to 1, then there was a 1-step delay after the start-signal... all the way up to 7, which would induce a 7-step delay.
The rudimentary "computers" on the ground, co-located with the radar, would receive these transmissions. Based on the known radio frequency, the timing of these short bursts of energy onto the carrier wavelength could be interpreted back into a number. If the radio on the ground received something like:
START-nothing-nothing-SIGNAL-nothing-nothing-nothing-nothing-nothing-START-nothing-nothing-SIGNAL-nothing-nothing-nothing-nothing-nothing.... then it could be calculated that the box onboard the aircraft was transmitting the "number 2".  If the secret number for that day (briefed to pilots before they left) was "2", then the plane was identified as a "FRIEND" in the IFF system. This was the very first transponder prototype. (BTW: It is called a "transponder" because it does two things: it TRANSmits a resPONSE to a specific signal on a specific frequency.)
But the obvious first hurdle was the fact that there were only 8 numbers available, and so the transponder boxes were quickly upgraded to two settings (56 possible code combinations) and then 4 settings (4,096 possible "code" combinations).
But there was still a "problem": the codes were set on the ground and could not be changed. Any mid-mission compromise of the number being used that day prevented aircraft already airborne from changing their codes. The next technological leap was to develop a panel-mounted system where the pilot could change each of the four dials manually.
This technology eventually entered the civilian arena. To distinguish between different types of transponders and who was using them (mostly a frequency issues - military freq vs. civilian freq), different categories came about, called "modes".  A "Mode 2" transponder was the above described 4-digit, octal, set-on-the-ground-and-leave-it system. A "Mode 3" transponder was the newer, pilot-sets-it-in-the-air version, but still using military frequencies.
When the civilians began using the same technology on approved civilian frequencies, the designation was "Mode 3-A", often just called a "Mode A" transponder. Combined with the advent of civilian air traffic surveillance radar, controllers could now distinguish "who was who" on their screens, by assigning each aircraft its own unique number.  This was great for a while, but the only thing controllers could see was the "blip" and its assigned number. The radar computer could also calculate ground speed, but not altitude. So, the controllers relied on the pilot to report their altitude verbally.
This led to the next technological leap forward in transponders. If that same radio could somehow be connected to the aircraft's pressure system (the same one that drives altimeters and vertical speed indicators), then it could probably somehow be configured to transmit that altitude data as well. That technology was thus invented, and the designation "Mode 3-A/C" was applied to the civilian versions... commonly (and still popular today) called a "Mode C Transponder".
This (finally) gets us to the original question: Why don't aircraft program their own registration numbers into the transponder?  Since there are only four octal digits available, there are three immediate problems: first, the numbers 8 and 9 are not usable; second, no letters are available; and third, with only 4096 possible combinations, and way more aircraft than that in the world, it is very highly possible that two aircraft in the same vicinity could possibly have the same number.
The advent of "Mode S" transponders, with "current-day" technology, can now transmit (as well as receive) all kinds of information, including the aircraft's specific identity like the question-asker thought should be the way it is. But, backwards compatibility for all of those aircraft still flying around out there with "Mode C" transponders still requires ATC to assign a unique code to an aircraft and the pilot to plug that number in.

Additional trivia, not directly related to the question: Since Mode C transponders are limited to the numbers 0-7, how can they transmit altitude data that might contain the numbers 8 and 9?
The answer is in an aspect of binary coding called a "Gray Code" (or sometimes a "Gillham Code"). The world's avionics people standardized on a set of codes to represent a set of altitudes in 100-foot increments. As a couple of examples, an aircraft at a pressure altitude of 8,500 feet would send the 4-digit code of 6220.   Sitting at a pressure altitude of 0 would result in the code 0620. The receiving ground station would evaluate both the pressure altitude received by the aircraft, as well as the current station pressure setting (commonly called the "altimeter setting"), and convert these into the aircraft's actual MSL altitude for display on the radar screen.
I was able to find this list of altitude-code conversions:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120726003224/http://www.airsport-corp.com/modecascii.txt

A number with 8 possible values is 3-bit, not 8

Thanks, @samgak, you're right -- I meant to say a 4-digit "octal" system.  These four, 3-bit "digits" is why the altitude de-coder (in the link provided) lists a 12-bit code for each altitude setting.

Saying altitude data may contain numbers 8 and 9 makes no sense. Altitude datum is just a number and number can be encoded in any numeric base, including 8. After all, computers encode everything in base 2. The reason for Gray Code was to avoid incorrect values if the interrogation happens when the unit is switching—the old systems were electro-mechanical and the switches for each bit could happen out of sync, but in Gray Code, only one bit needs to be flipped between successive values, so it does not matter.

@JanHudec while true, the intent was to say that an altitude of 8,900 feet can not be transmitted using the four switches, each of which send a signal that can only be interpreted as 0-7.  The Grey Code is what receives the "number" of 6500 and interprets that to be an altitude of 8500 feet. But that interpretation cannot happen if the standard is not pre-determined, so that the aerial transponder knows what to send and the ground based receiver knows what that translates to.

@Jimmy, 6,600 feet can not be transmitted, in feet, using the four switches either, because the maximum value is 4,095. Because interpreting it as number—0 to 4,095—is different from interpretation as four digits.

Except that 4 individual digits (from 0-7) IS what is transmitted. Thus, there are only 4,096 possible combinations of those 4 digits.  6600 feet would be transmitted at 4-0-6-0.

Why not make altitude 8,500 (FL085) just be 0125 octal?  125 octal is exactly 85 decimal without needing any standard to get in the way.

@Jimmy, 8900 feet can be transmitted using the 4 switches as follows: 0 - 1 - 3 - 1.  If they were hexidecimal switches it would be as follows: 0 - 0 - 5 - 9.  In base 6:  0 - 2 - 2 - 5.  In base 36: 0 - 0 - 2 - H. etc.

The short answer is that they often do both.
Mode S transponders (which you'll find on most airliners, and are now becoming common on light aircraft as well) transmit a unique aircraft identifier that the ATC system can interpret and display.
Older transponders only support the Mode A identifier code (the squawk code we're familiar with selecting) - this is an offshoot of military IFF technology (Mode 3) where the transponder is interrogated by a radar station and returns an identifying code which the ATC system then interprets and deals with appropriately.
Both methods are currently used to identify aircraft: A discrete Mode A squawk is associated with your N number by ATC and the system will tag your target appropriately. If a Mode S response is received that can be mapped to a non-discrete code like 1200 to populate the data block.
The Mode A codes will likely remain in use for the foreseeable future because as others mentioned in the comments there are non-discrete codes that have been assigned special meaning to communicate information useful to ATC (in the US 1200 for VFR, 7000 for VFR in some other places, 7500 for hijacking, 7600 for lost comms, and 7700 for general emergency), and combined with a Mode S ID this can allow ATC to know that the aircraft that was squawking 1200 and is now squawking 7700 is N12345.


text:
Where can I find records about accidents in the South Vietnam Air Force?
I don't know if this is the right place for this question, but I guess it's related to aviation right?
My grand uncle was a pilot in the South Vietnam Air Force. He served from 1964 to 1968. He flew F-5s and A-37s and crashed on a A-37.
Being I student pilot now, I very much want to look back and find out what really caused his crash. My family fled Vietnam from the Communists when I was too young. I only remember seeing his Air Force Death Certificate in English which I didn't understand a word in it back then. I was told from multiple sources that his A37 blew up before taking off, and that he crashed soon after take-off... But I always wanted to see the actual result of an investigation if any.
Do you think it is even possible to look up records for those dead ones who served for the South of Vietnam? (since I know they are considered forgotten in the history of the Vietnam War)
The information about the accident that I can remember:
Date and time of the accident: 12/10/1968 9AM
Location: Pleiku Airbase, Vietnam
Aircraft: A-37
Name of pilot: Hai, Le Nguyen (Lê Nguyên Hải)
Pilot's rank: Lieutenant
Pilot's DOB: 12/09/1941
Thanks.

May be you have to ask history.se

That's going too be a tough one. There's no telling if any records from the south Vietnam air force survived the war. If the US Air Force investigated the accident they may have records of it. The US military keeps some pretty meticulous records. The place to contact would be the national archives. Remember that they have LOTS of records that have not been made available on the net.

Another organization I ran across is the A-37 Association There's some email addresses on their site. The US a-37 pilots at the time were training the Vietnamese pilots and I'm sure worked closely with them. They might be able to steer you in the right direction. The last thing any veteran wants to see is another veteran of any nationality be forgotten.

Thank you so much for your help, guys. I'll contact the suggested sources for more info.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
In current missile, what is the guidance law used at terminal phase in homing missile guidance?
In current missile, what is the guidance law used at terminal phase in homing missile guidance?
eg: Proportional navigation, Augumented PN, Optimal Guidance Law, etc
At what distance the terminal phase guidance engage for Air Interceptor Missile(AIM) { eg: sidewinder, Derby, etc }. This is for active seeker(radar). And what is the terminal phase guidance used for active (radar) seeker.
what are information get from seeker to guidance system at terminal phase using active seeker(radar), other than Line_of_Sight(LOS) and Relative range(R) between missile and target.

Normally the terminal phase of trajectory will be computed by some specialized algorithm which is specific to the missile, particularly to the type of sensor and processor used as well as the nature of the propulsion and maneuverability characteristics of the vehicle.
The reason for this is that during the terminal phase only a few measurements are possible. For example, let's imagine the signal train of the weapon's seeker has a 15 millisecond sensor loop time, a 50 millisecond control loop, and the vehicle is traveling 1500 feet per second. In that case you make one measurement every 22 feet and one control change every 75 feet. So, if the weapon is 200 feet away from the target it will get to make only 2 control changes before intercept based on about 8 measurements total. Depending on the type of measurement, there will be a highly specialized algorithm which is designed to optimize the chance of a kill given the limited information available.

The specialized algorithm that he's asking about (as stated in his question) is: "Proportional navigation, Augumented PN, Optimal Guidance Law, etc".

@RhinoDriver By a "specialized" algorithm I am referring to an algorithm SPECIFIC TO THE MISSILE as it says in my post. PN is a generic navigational method which any missile can use. Generic navigation is not used in the terminal phase of missile flight. Generic methods are generally only used in mid-course navigation. The OP asked about terminal phase navigation, not mid-course flight.

Terminal guidance references the final guidance stage that the missile uses to guide to the target.  In the case of IR missiles that literally only have a single guidance stage, they are terminal the moment they leave the rail.  An active missile (like the 120) is terminal as soon as it enters an active state.  In either case the missile doesn't make drastic changes to its guidance because its become terminal, it continues the same track.  Smarter missiles may adjust to the target using optimal homing guidance, but even then, its still maintaining the same guidance law in the terminal phase.

It's also worth noting that pronav ultimately refers to the type of intercept geometry the missile uses.  In the case of a non-manoeuvring target, the missile will continue the same profile until impact to preserve maximum energy for the end game.

@RhinoDriver The OP does not state what kind of missile he is talking about, however, he specifically refers to those having a terminal phase. As far as the AIM-120 is concerned, it has a terminal phase which is completely different than its search phase. It uses a closed-loop active radar seeker. Closed loop homing algorithms are generally very complicated and are specifically tuned to the sensor (a kind of radar in this case).

Every missile has a terminal phase, whether off the rail or midflight. In the case of the AIM 120C, prior to coming off the rail, the 120 downloads target information and uses INS nav to begin the intercept. It then gets periodic updates from the host aircraft's radar via data link. As the missile approaches the point where it expects to see the target it opens its "eyes" and goes active, becoming self-guiding. At this point the 120 is now terminal. Again, intercept geometry hasn't changed, only the track method.

According to this easy to read brief introduction:
Optimal Homing Guidance Laws

Other Optimal Homing Guidance Laws, many modern guidance laws require
  an estimate of time-to-go (tgo), which is the time it will take the
  missile to intercept the target or to arrive at the closest point of
  approach (CPA). The tgo estimate also is a critical quantity for
  missiles that carry a warhead that must detonate when the missile is
  close to the target.

Time to go is not used for the terminal phase of the engagement.

@TylerDurden How do you arrive at that conclusion? Many missiles use TTG during the terminal phase to augment PN to provide the zero-miss vector and CPA.  Try this for a start

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Why Black Boxes are not capable of transmitting its Critical Data directly to satellite?
Why don't airplane include a satellite technology to upload the critical (Voice/Engine etc) data recorded in FDR to satellite. This would be very useful, in case of missing FDR.
Is there any technology/Equipment existing on this issue?
Note: FDR can just to start transmitting the very latest data first followed by old data in sequence before aircraft gets into crashing mode. Probably we do have some specification/limits to determine the aircraft crashing probabilities. Even if FDR is missing from the crash site we will have some limited data(might not be complete data) which got stored after crash trigger.

Added a note, yeah referred question is partially covers the subject, edited note would give more details on the intent of question.

There is no technology problem, this can be done. This is a matter of cost, as satellites are involved, and the transmissions must be frequent. Relying on prediction for less frequent communication would not be satisfactory.

@mins Answer in the question suggest that ~500GB data uploading into satellite is huge cost/bandwidth. What I'm saying is if we are able to find the crashing point, from that point of time start uploading the data until it;s possible to upload. (New FDR data to old data in sequence)

if we are able to find the crashing point, from that point of time start uploading: Assuming you can predict the accident, which is another question -- I don't believe it is reliable... you need to be able to transmit to the satellite, but this may not be the case. The satellite antenna may not see its target due to the aircraft attitude, or there could be radio interference from the cause of the accident, etc . Data must be uploaded at frequent interval, this has a cost many passengers don't want to pay. With 100.000 flights per day, you need a large satellite data flow.


text:
What is the significance of Slip-Skid Indicator in PFD?
Slip Skid Indicator as depicted in the picture below;
What's the significance of Slip Skid Indicator?
How Slip Skid Indicator is used in flying the aircraft?
What are other performance/operations needs to be taken care while this exceeds its normal bound?

Primary flight display with Slip Skid Indicator, Source - www.aboutflight.com

Isn't that the "ball" in a needle & ball?

@Xen2050 I didn't get you, what do you mean?

turn & bank indicator http://avionicsmasters.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/4/0/4099b_front_.jpg

OP asked what to do. If indicator becomes unaligned with roll pointer, apply more rudder on the side where the indicator has moved. It's called, "stepping on the ball."
So if the slip/skid is right of the roll pointer, apply right rudder. If the indicator (a ball in the analog turn coordinator) is too far left, apply left rudder to force it back into alignment with the roll pointer.
This keeps the plane's nose pointing into the flight path, rather than to the inside or outside of the turn, which puts you at risk of stalling.

Does being uncoordinated increase the risk of stalling?  I know it increases the risk of a spin, should a stall occur.

Yup. A sideslip increases the stall speed of the craft on top of the increase created by the bank. Added together, you can find yourself unexpectedly at stall speed. When an aircraft turns, a portion of the vertical component of lift is transferred to horizontal component of lift, drag increases and therefore the stall speed increases.  Uncoordinated flight further increases the stall speed, which may bring the actual stall speed of the aircraft in that configuration dangerously close to the actual airspeed of the aircraft. http://www.downwindmag.com/2009/11/149/

The slip/skid indicator is the small bar under the roll pointer. The image below should clarify that.

Image from flightlearnings.com
The Slip/Skid Indicator (sometimes called turn-and-bank indicator) moves left and right relative to the roll pointer in proportion to lateral acceleration and helps the pilot correct for any deviations in a turn.
In a level flight, the indicator is centered. Assume that the pilot is executing a left turn (the roll pointer would've moved left)- if the indicator is in center, it means that the turn is coordinated i.e. the aircraft is not slipping or skidding.
If the indicator (bar) is moving right, it shows that the aircraft is skidding. Movement in the opposite side (i.e. towards the left, same direction of turn) indicates that the aircraft is slipping. This enables the pilot to take corrective action. This is one of the necessary flight instruments.

According to this page on using the G1000:

Slip/Skid Indicator
The Slip/Skid Indicator is the small bar under the Roll Pointer. It moves away from the Roll Pointer to indicate slip or skid, just like
  the ball on a traditional Turn Coordinator.

So it's used exactly the same as the analog ball. If it's away from the roll pointer (out of center in analog), you're in a slip or a skid.

On the B777, the only time I use it is during engine out maneuvers in the simulator.
It helps determine how much rudder trim should be used while operating with one engine.


text:
How does detonation and pre-ignition affect EGT/CHT readings?
I've read that during engine detonation EGT decreases and CHT increases. In contrast, when pre-ignition occurs both EGT and CHT will rapidly increase.
Unfortunately, I can't find a good explanation for why this happens.
I assume that in both cases CHT increases because the mistimed combustion reaction is exposed to the cylinder wall for a longer period of time? However, I don't understand what would account for the difference in EGT behavior.

The events of detonation and pre-ignition have a couple of significant differences:
(for reference, normal maximum cylinder pressure during combustion phase is roughly less than 60 bar / 870psi, I'm gonna get reprimanded for this number, I'm sure of it)
Pre-ignition is an event where the air-fuel mixture ignites on it's own before the spark ignites it. The mixture then burns at somewhat normal rate, but as the ignition happened way too early, and the burning mixture tries to expand against diminishing cylinder volume as the engine is still in compression stroke, it will produce excess heat and about 25% higher cylinder pressures.
Detonation is an event where spark has already ignited the mixture, but it also ignites spontaneously at a different part of the cylinder. The flame fronts propagate extremely fast and collide, creating extreme (and rapidly fluctuating) cylinder pressures. In worst cases the cylinder pressures exceed twice or more that of a normal combustion.
Assuming all other variables are the same: rpm, AFR, initial CHT and  EGT, the differences in the "heat signature" when pre-ignition or detonation happen can be explained as follows:
In the case of pre-ignition, the excess heat is partially transferred to piston, cylinder walls and cylinder head in "a normal" manner (explanation coming). All of the excess heat does not have time to transfer into the parts and structure, and is thus expunged with gasses, and this can be observed as elevated EGT.
With detonation, however, the event is so violent it forms a shockwave that  breaks up the boundary layer normally residing along the surfaces of the cylinder. This boundary layer normally acts an insulator of sorts. The extra heat is then transferred at a high rate to the surrounding surfaces. Less heat remains in the gasses and therefore the EGT is reduced.
Detonation is a very dangerous event due to the extreme pressures and high heat impact. Not to say pre-ignition is safe, but detonation is in a class of its own. I was unable to quickly find a reliable source for the following statement, but I'll spill it out anyway: While both events rise CHT, detonation will do so more dramatically due to the higher transfer rate and thus lower EGT.
The energy will have to go somewhere, and as in the event of detonation most of it goes to the engine itself, a catastrophic failure is imminent.

Very good reference found here.
EGT is exhaust gas temperature, proportional to stoichiometric ratio of fuel burned.  CHT is cylinder head temperature, which has more to do with the timing of the spark.
Detonation is caused by fuel essentially exploding or burning unevenly in the compression stroke.  EGT is lower because ignition of fuel is completed earlier in the cycle, transferring more heat to the cylinder head.
Since richness can affect rate of burn, slightly rich of peak has the same effect as advancing the spark.  Adjusting from full rich to slightly rich can raise both CHT and EGT.
Preignition occurs when fuel burn starts before the spark.
The reason for higher EGT with pre-ignition may be that in that it involves all of the fuel burning too soon, whereas detonation is more of a local phenomena (with a leaner mixture).

Detonation or pre-ignition are not necessarily simply mixture related events, and detonation too involves all of the fuel burning too soon, or rather too fast (hence the name detonation vs. combustion used to describe normal rate of burn.

Yes, and poor fuel can have a lot to do with that.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Why is the rotor system of an aircraft and the rotor system of a helicopter different?
Both aircraft with propeller(variable pitch) and helicopter rotor system can change pitch.
Of course, for helicopter, there is not only collective pitch control but also cyclic control.
The aircraft rotor system seems to be heavy because it uses hydraulic.
With the exception of the cyclic control of the helicopter, it seems lighter and simpler to use the helicopter's rotor system on an aircraft.
I would like to know what happens when we replace the aircraft's rotor system with helicopter's rotor system.

Welcome to Av.SE.  You ask one question in the title, but a rather different question at the end of your post. The format here works best with one clearly defined & focused question. You're more likely to have a well-received question if you narrow it down to one question that is specific -- "why is the world the way it is" or "how are cats different than dogs" don't tend to work well.

The propeller moves through air mostly along its axis of rotation. This means that flow parameters stay constant along the circumference.
The helicopter rotor moves through air mostly orthogonally to its axis of rotation. Consequently, flow parameters will vary along the circumference. Especially the local airspeed changes cyclically, and with it lift and drag. On one side rotor speed and air speed add up, and on the other side one is subtracted from the other. The rotor has added hinges or flexibility in order to allow cyclic movement of its blades (actively in pitch and passively both up and down, and fore and aft) so the variations in lift and drag don't roll the helicopter to one side.
Helicopter blades use symmetrical or reflex airfoils, so pitch moments are minimized. Propellers can use airfoils with positive camber, and their inherent instability needs hydraulics in order to control their pitch. Those cambered airfoils are more efficient, however, so their better efficiency more than compensates for the added mass of hydraulic pitch actuation.

The aircraft hydraulic pitch control system is much simpler and has fewer moving parts than a helicopter's main rotor pitch control system.
A helicopter's main rotor runs at between 500 to 800RPM, but (for example) in the world of general aviation using piston engines an airplane's propeller runs at between 2400 and 2600RPM. If built to withstand the dynamic loads at 2500RPM, a helicopter main rotor would be far more massive.
Airplanes have no need of the cyclic pitch control system that helicopters require in order to be controllable.
All these things mean that mounting a collective-and-cyclic blade pitch mechanism on the crankshaft of an airplane engine would be a meaningless exercise.

Not to mention that a lot of airplanes don't even have a pitch control system.

agree..........

"an airplane's propeller runs at between 2400 and 2600RPM" This is for sure not true in general. There are many aircraft out there with many different RPM ranges (Dash-8 Q400 for example runs between 850 and 1020 RPM).

I am talking here about general aviation using reciprocating engines. Sorry if I did not make that clear, will edit.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
How close would another aircraft have to fly to warrant a sudden big altitude drop to avoid collision
This morning I read that mulitple people got (light) physical injuries after a passenger flight had to forcefully drop its altitude quickly in order to avoid collision with a fighter jet. The news article stated that it was flying at a  "safe" distance of 1,000 metres for a visual inspection, and that there was no danger at all. Although some other sources state that the distance was only down to a hundred meters
To me (someone who knows next to nothing about flying) a distance of one kilometer sounds pretty close for two planes to fly at (seeing the speeds planes travel at). The article states that this is "in accordance with international standards", but from this answer I understood that 3 to 5 miles (4.8 to 8km) is the general distance. However that answer also states that in a "Military Operations Area" this may not be the case (which this area might have been in, but then I feel like it wouldn't have mattered that it was "in accordance with international standards", as those don't apply then anyway).
That said, are there any alarms or warnings that start going off when another aircraft gets so close to warn the pilot of possible collision, or is a pilot trained to undertake action based on what his/her visuals/flight data are telling him/her at the moment? (I have read before that measuring a distance by visuals is very hard in open air due to there being no reference points, so I think it is unlikely that a pilot would act up on that alone). What is the protocol for a pilot suspecting the possibility of a mid-air collision?

It seems that this incident is also a bit of a political issue. I am not trying to discuss if everyone took the right actions here, and what the intentions of the parties were. Just interested in the protocol behind making such a drop.

The referenced incident: http://avherald.com/h?article=4da54d79&opt=0

@expeditedescent thank you for linking that, I witheld from posting a news article about it myself as I didn't want to bring any bias or standpoints to the post. But that article seems to take an excellent neutral technicals only approach!

It's a great site for information about aviation incidents and accidents. As long as you ignore the comments section, which is generally not very constructive.

It depends.  In the case of a fighter jet doing an interception, a distance of a few meters would be reasonably safe.  It's standard for fighters to fly in formations, or do mid-air refueling, with separations of a few tens of meters.  For aircraft going in the same direction at roughly the same speed, the 1000 m separation is perfectly safe.

Most modern aircraft are equipped with TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) which is a last resort to avoid collision if all other safety nets have failed and two aircraft have gotten too close.
A TCAS can generate an RA (Resolution Advisory) which is a distinct message instructing the pilots what to do - typically either "CLIMB" or "DESCEND". When an RA is generated, the pilots have to comply with it immediately, regardless of all other instructions, unless it directly puts the aircraft in danger. In case of two conflicting aircraft, the TCAS system of each aircraft will communicate with the other, so for example, for two flights on converging courses, one will get a "CLIMB" instruction and the other a "DESCEND".
As for timing:

The maximum generation time for an [...] RA is 35 seconds. The time scales are shorter at lower altitudes (where aircraft typically fly slower). Unexpected or rapid aircraft manoeuvre may cause an RA to be generated with much less lead time. [...] The effectiveness of an RA is evaluated by the ACAS equipment every second and, if necessary, the RA may be strengthened, weakened, reversed, or terminated.

From SKYbrary
Essentially, this means that an RA will only be generated if two aircraft are calculated as being very close to colliding (within 30 or so seconds of collision). Note that the actual distance between the two aircraft does not matter in this regard - calculations are based on "time until impact". Two aircraft on slightly converging courses, closing slowly, can get much closer before an RA is triggered compared to two fast aircraft meeting head on.

As for the specific incident you are talking about, it is unclear if a TCAS RA was generated. Normally, fighters intercepting an aircraft will turn off their transponder (at least partly) to disable TCAS, with the specific purpose of avoiding such alerts (since they intentionally want to fly close to the other aircraft).
Even if we consider the "1000 metres" claim to be correct, it is not possible to say if that is "too close" or not. If we are talking 1000 metres vertically, that is more than 3 times the normal required separation of 1000 feet. However, 1000 metres horizontally would, in many (but not all) cases, be too close.

Amazing! Thinking about it having "too close" be related to "time until impact" rather than distance in meter/feet makes a lot of sense! Just making sure since I'm not too familiar with Aviation.se, is there a usual grace period here for waiting to accept an answer?

I would accept an answer coming from the guy who has part of the question as his user name!  :)

@Remy Happy you found it useful :) Some people suggest waiting 24 hours in case someone in a different timezone comes up with a better answer

@Remy Note that under normal circumstances, "too close" is indeed related to distance and altitude. It's just in the rare case where TCAS takes over (a real risk of collision) that calculations are based on time instead

I had an interesting experience once. We were doing a pre-delivery test flight on a corporate jet at a completion center near St Louis, and were flying VFR in the pattern on downwind after completing an Air Driven Generator drop test, when I got a TCAS TA from a light plane about 10:00 and a couple miles roughly on our level (the tower had said to watch for him; I believe he was heading to join the pattern for a smaller GA runway on the same airport).We spotted him just as the TA turned into an RA,observed he was going to pass well clear behind us, so I was able to ignore the RA and carry on.

@JohnK I once had a medium jet and a small prop both VFR in the pattern (one left hand and the other right hand). They were both aware of each other. At one point, the jet practised a low approach and went around on short final, while the prop was on downwind. The jet then got and responded to an RA climb because the prop - on downwind - had turned ever so slightly toward the runway. Obligatory paperwork followed. I neved understood why the pilots of the jet had not set their TCAS to TA ONLY when they knew they were in the pattern with a small prop.

So, for instrument flight rules (IFR) flghts, so every airline flight, the minimum vertical distance is 1000ft, so about 300meters. Ofcourse we can't know if the fighter was on an IFR plan or not, or what it was doing up there

That said, are there any alarms or warnings that start going off when another aircraft gets so close to warn the pilot of possible collision

Yes, if both the planes have their transponders on there's a system, called TCAS that, if the planes are in a collision route will thell the pilots what to do to avoid crashing into each other, the pilots MUST do what the TCAS tells them to. But most of the time for IFR flights ATC is responsible for separation between planes

Very interesting! What would a "command" from this TCAS system look like, does it state something like (simplified) "Drop x Altitude within n time" ?

@Remy it is usually something like "DESCEND, DESCEND NOW!". Wikipedia has a list of all TCAS RA instructions.


text:
Is airspace above KKIC class G at 3,500’ MSL?
Flying from KPRB to KKIC, in a straight route shown on SkyVector, except keeping slightly to the East of R-2504A&B, holding an altitude of 3500MSL, except for normal takeoff and descent rates, am I correct in the following?

Taking off from KPRB, you're in Class E airspace within the dashed magenta lines.
Once you're out of KPRB's dashed magenta lines, all the way to landing at KKIC, you're in Class G airspace.

I'm watching a video from PilotEdge, and at 47:33 he roughly says "We know we're going to be in Echo as we take off.  We're going to be in Echo for the rest.  We know we're in Echo by default, because there's nothing else around."
I think the "We're going to be in Echo for the rest" part is wrong.  Am I correct here?  If I'm wrong, can you please explain why it's Class E?  It's not within a fuzzy blue or magenta line, and we're flying at 3500MSL, so obviously never going above the Class G 14500AGL ceiling.
I think he's just simplifying things because in another video said VFR pilots in the air can practically treat all Class G airspace as Class E, not using the less restrictive weather minimums, and be safer.  But, starting to learn aeronautical charts and flight planning, I want to know if I'm fundamentally starting with a misunderstanding or not.  The YouTube video has no comments about this statement.

As long as the flight climbs above 1,200’ AGL before exiting the area where class E begins at the surface, the whole flight is conducted in class E airspace until descending below 1,200’ AGL on the approach to the KKIC airport.
The point of confusion I think is where you've read that class G airspace goes up to 14,500 MSL.

Class G Airspace within the United States extends up to 14,500’ MSL.

But first you must consider the following.

Class E Airspace exists at 1,200’ AGL unless designated otherwise.

We can see to the west that there are areas where there are exceptions to the 1,200’ AGL specification, but this flight plan does not go through them. This means that the en route phase of the flight, if conducted above 1,200’ AGL is conducted in class E airspace.
We can reference all this using the Aeronautical Chart User's Guide.

ahh. The blue areas are inverted from the magentas. The magentas go from solid to lighter going inward, and the blues go in the reverse from lighter to solid going inward. So, ignoring the direction of the shading you can look at it in a simplified way of that the magentas carve out lower class E floors (700AGL rather than 1200AGL) and blues carve out class G areas from floor to 14500AGL.  So, the default assumption because the inverted blue areas are relatively small, is that if you don't see graduated blue, you're at an area with class E floors at 1200AGL?

and, adding to your first sentence, you'd be in class G during the descent at KKIC from 1200AGL to surface, right?

That's correct. I made the an edit to correct that.

The Aeronautical Chart User's Guide is often overlooked, but it's an awesome resource if you want to be a master of the charts. It comes as a PDF or also has a web based version that's really great too.

The whole flight is in Class E airspace once above 1,200 FT AGL.
The reason is that the Blue shaded line is so hard to find. It's easier to find Class G airspace upto 14,5000 FT MSL on a IFR low enroute chart.
See this excerpt from Skyvector.  Notice the brown shaded area.  Click on the Phoenix sectional and see the blue shaded line.
https://skyvector.com/?ll=33.2676277850092,-115.22790527580197&chart=302&zoom=2&fpl=undefined

thanks, you and Ryan set me straight.  Looks like there's a typo here though, looks like Class E starts at 1200 AGL, not MSL.


text:
Clarification on the SEA-TAC VFR map
I've been looking at the SEA-TAC VFR map, and something caught my eye...

On this map one can see that the SEA-TAC airport has a class B designation in a strange inverse-rhomboid  shape, surrounded by, depending on the direction, class C or D airspace.
This is confusing to me, and I am looking for clarification.
Specifically:
There is no Ceiling or floor stated for the class C space. What are the proper ceiling/floor elevations for the class C airspace?
There is also no ceiling or floor for the class D space. What are the proper ceiling/floor elevations here?
The center of the map also says "see NOTAMSs/SUPPLEMENT" for class D eff hrs. I didn't get any supplement with this digital map.. where would I find this information?

The text says "MODE C" not "CLASS C"

The supplement that the note is referring to is the Chart Supplements booklet.  It is freely downloadable from the FAA website. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/digital_products/

Your question is flawed because you have labeled the airspace incorrectly:

The thin circular magenta line you have labeled class C is actually the edge of the 30 mile mode C veil around SEA.

The shaded magenta line you have labeled class D actually depicts the area where the class E floor is 700’ AGL.

If you want to see how class C airspace is normally depicted, look North to NAS Whidbey Island.
If you want to see how class D airspace is depicted, come halfway back to Paine Field in Everett.  (There is also class D around SEA, BFI and RNT, but they overlap each other and the chart is pretty busy in this area, so Everett is a cleaner example.)

Michael Hall has already given you the correct answer. I just want to add clarification.
The Mode C Veil is the thin magenta line surrounding the Class B airport. The line is always depicted as thinner Than the border of Class C airspace. In fact, the two have nothing to do with each other. The Mode C Veil is the outer limit at which a Mode C compliant transponder must be operational regardless of airspace (except for certain aircraft). As of 2020, this regulation also applies to ADS-b Out. By regulations, it is a circle around the center of the controlling Class B airspace with a radius of 30 Nautical Miles per 14 CFR Appendix D Part 91

Appendix D to Part 91   Airports / Locations: Special Operating
Restrictions

Locations at which the requirements of §91.215(b)(2) and §91.225(d)(2) apply. The requirements of §91.215(b)(2) and
§91.225(d)(2) apply below 10,000 feet MSL within a 30-nautical-mileradius of each location in the following list.

SeaTac airport is on this list.
The border of Class C airspace is denoted by a thicker solid magenta line where as the border of a TRSA (baby C) is denoted by a thicker solid gray line. The shape of Class C airspace is generally like an upside down wedding cake. The lower level starts at the surface and extends upward to 1200 feet AGL with a radius of 5 Nautical Miles. The upper level starts at 1200 feet AGL and extends upward to 4000 feet AGL with a radius of 10 Nautical Miles.
The border of Class D airspace is denoted by a cyan blue segmented line forming a circle of generally 4 Nautical mile radius from the center of the controlling airport. The dimensions of Class D airspace generally start at the surface and extend upward to 2500 feet AGL unless otherwise noted.
The border of Class E airspace is denoted in several different ways depending on the type of Class E airspace. Two of which are depicted in your example of SeaTac Airport even though you easily see only one. These are

Class E to the Surface - thin segmented magenta line.
Class E surface Extension - thin segmented magenta line.
Class E Transition airspace starting at 700 AGL - shaded magenta line.
Victor and other federal airways - pale lines generally blue in color.
Offshore Class E starting at various altitudes - blue zipper lines.
Domestic enroute Class E - shaded blue lines when starting at 1200 feet AGL and zipper lines when at different altitudes.
Class E Above 60,000 feet - usually not denoted.

Class G is not denoted. It can be generally thought of as anything below, above and outside of all other airspace. On a US sectional chart, it generally Class G starts at the surface and extends upward to the Class E Domestic enroute altitude of 1200 feet AGL unless the surface elevation is greater than 13,000 feet MSL. Then, Class G extends upward to 1500 feet AGL. Under the Class E Transition area, Class G starts at the surface and extends upward to 700 feet AGL. It can also be located on the darker solid side of the shaded blue line of Class E Domestic Enroute starting at the surface and extending upward to 14,500 feet MSL or 1500 feet AGL. Whichever is higher.

Very informative!

@tuskiomi - No problem. By the way, the US Chart Supplement mentioned earlier was formerly known as the Airport/Facility Directory at one point in time. You may recognize it by this name.

"In fact, the two have nothing to do with each other." Both the Mode C veil and the Class C airspace markings indicate airspace where an operational Mode C transponder is necessary, so there is a small bit of similarity. But as you point out magenta is also used for Class E surface areas, which do not require Mode C (or any transponder at all).

@randomhead - The assertion that the Mode C Veil and Class C Airspace is pretty important to the question. The Original Poster had a fundamental misunderstanding about Mode C and Class C. The two have nothing to do with each other. Generally/typically, where you have one, you will not have the other. The fact that they share similar properties is not relative to the question. Where they do coexist, the Mode C Veil is centered around the Class B airport regardless of the shape of the Class B airspace and irrespective of other airspaces.

@randomhead - As a matter of fact, you can be inside Class B or C Airspace, but outside of the Mode C Veil. Conversely, you can be inside the Mode C Veil while simultaneously in Class D, E or G Airspace. Class A Airspace, Class B Airspace, Class C Airspace, and the Mode C Veil all share similar requirements for transponders as does 10,000 feet MSL regardless of airspace or veil.


text:
What regulations are in place for ultralight vehicles flying over US national parks?
A flight instructor i met with recently said that flying ultralight over national parks is a crime. The law section of the powered paragliders bible has nothing on parks.
One would think that commercial vehicles wouldn't be needing to  plan around parks above a certain altitude.  But ultralight vehicles may have different regulations.
After further reading into the book,  it says "almost all state and federal parks prohibit launching aircraft and ultralights except at airports." Nothing about flying though

Possible duplicate of What is the legal altitude to fly through Yosemite Valley (US)?

The answer in the Yosemite question is broad, @mins, and I do think it answers this one.

@GdD I don't think it's a dupe. This is asking about FAR 103 regulation aircraft. the other one seems to be commercial.

There are no regulations that prohibit operating an ultralight (or any other aircraft) over a national park. We have a similar question about Yosemite and the same general answer would apply to any other national park.
For ultralights specifically, the regulations are in 14 CFR 103 which has only a few very simple restrictions on where ultralights can operate. 103.15 says you can't operate over a congested area or a crowd of people and other restrictions are the obvious ones: don't fly near airports without ATC approval, don't enter restricted airspace, and do follow NOTAMs.
That means that - as with the Yosemite question above - it comes down to whether the national park in question is a congested area or not. Realistically, most parks where you might want to fly an ultralight probably aren't, so it's very likely that you can fly over them at any altitude you like: part 91 doesn't apply to ultralights, so the minimum altitudes mentioned in the Yosemite question wouldn't matter.
There's also AC 91-36 to consider, which requests pilots to stay voluntarily above 2000' AGL. I don't know whether it's meant to include ultralights (it's a part 91 AC) but it doesn't really matter because the general guidance is definitely applicable to anything that flies:

The intent of the 2,000 feet AGL recommendation is to reduce potential
  interference with wildlife and complaints of noise disturbances caused
  by low flying aircraft over noise-sensitive areas

As you already mentioned, there might be restrictions on taking off and landing in a park or other public areas (that's an issue for seaplanes, helicopters and bush pilots too), but those would be non-FAA regulations.

Cool! I know it isn't respectful to buzz around at low altitudes, and with all parks being different, I do plan on asking. That in mind, The law needs to be cleared first.

How did a pilot measures 2000m AGL? Normally we measured ASL, as it normally done by any measurements.

@AirCraftLover The same way you maintain 500 feet separation with the terrain and a cloud deck. Any sectional will list peak heights and runway altitudes so knowing the physical altitude and the ASL alt should let you get fairly close to 2000 AGL. I don't think that the FAA will run out with a tape measure, but they needed a number that cant be confused with 500 feet so if you know how big things on the ground look when you are at 500 feet AGL so make them 1/4 the size and you will be fine.

@RowanHawkins, so it is mean that we must know any location before we go to fly?

The use of mechanized items, which UAS, ultralights and other aircraft are considered are prohibited from Congressionally Designated Wilderness areas.
That designation does not appear on a sectional chart, but can be queried from the supervisor for the park or forest.  As far as I know, overflights, particularly those by manned aircraft are not prohibited, but launch, recovery or operation from the wilderness area is prohibited.

The first thing I want to say here is that you don't want to be the reason that a law is written. The FAA tries very hard to not need to enforce any types of rules on it users. It comes though in all of their failure to drive NTSB suggested changes, and covers how they deal with 'Experimental' aircraft. They let Darwin take its course as long as you are not injuring others or destroying property.
There is a notice in the lower left corner of the print Sectional Map(Detroit). I am aware these are all digital now, but the reference version maintains the legal statute and there is important information there that the online service should be reproducing. This states in part...

Regulations regarding flights over charted National Park Service areas, US Fish
and Wildlife service areas, Bureau of Land Management areas and US Forest Service
Areas
"The landing of aircraft is prohibited on the land or waters administrated by the
National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and
US Forest Service (hereafter referred to as Agency/Agencies) without authorization
from the respective agency."

There are a few logical exceptions listed, and it continues (emphasis added) ...

"All aircraft are requested to maintain a minimum altitude of 2000 feet above the surface of the following: Game Ranges Wildlife Ranges, Conservation Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness Areas and Primitive Areas administered by the Agencies."

It makes reference to the Advisory Circular below and talks about it being illegal for the most part to drop people or objects from your aircraft in those areas.

Advisory Circular published in 2004 AC91-36D VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) FLIGHT NEAR NOISE-SENSITIVE AREAS which says that the FAA gets noise complaints from non-aviation users of the areas defined above. They don't like needing to followup with pilots and suggest in no uncertain terms fly no lower than 2000 feet AGL over a crater rim or highest ground point unless you need to do so to maintain VFR, and maybe consider planning a different route depending on the size and location of the Agency's Facility.

FAA Order JO 7400.2 Appendix 9 specifically talks about Noise abatement over Federally Managed Lands.

You should also check the State you are flying in because I would bet that the State Facilities have similar rules set into their language. From a safety stand point these areas do not offer many safe emergency landing areas. I would suggest overflight planning using internet based imaging. (Most of what Google has is not satellite imagery).
This is an item that doesn't specifically apply, but keeps in the spirit of all of the above:

"National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000" Having to do with commercial aircraft operations in and around federal lands, however someone on the ground is not going to know what part you are flying under.

Frankly this looks like it makes DOA one of the primary reasons I want to get a helicopter pilots certificate, at least for my state. To reach into deep back country areas for hiking and personal photography. I do know that camping isn't allowed in many of those areas near me. I figured being able to fly in and primitive camp in the areas that do, would be a good way to have a low impact. The only time you touch the ground is when you get in.

@quietflyer That is a completely different issue to the question asked. This is not the proper place for unrelated comments and general discussion.

Pilot regulations are under part 91. Violations are under part 61. You might be flying under part 103 but the answer is yes and ultralight vehicle is not a certified aircraft but the answer is yes you are still required to follow the federal minimum prescribes under CFR the codified federal rules. Just because your meeting the requirements of part 103 does not mean those are the only requirements.
An ultra-light is considered a vehicle. But an ultra-light is still an aircraft. There are different types of aircrafts. Don't get mistaken and and up foot dragging down the highway. Because I promise you I've seen in 20 years I've seen plenty guys end up with some images of over $1,000 and having their equipment taken because they don't gain the concept.

Welcome to aviation.SE. I'm sorry, but this does not seem to answer the question "what regulations are there?" It mentions that some regulations are in place, but does not provide any detail that was not available in the other answers.

@Federico I'd say it's more info than a comment should have, even if incomplete, it adds to the knowledgebase.

Operations are under part 91, and pilots and aircrew are generally under 61.  It is not accurate to say that violations are under part 61. In fact many violations are of Part 91.  Now specific to the question, designated wilderness areas and the use of mechanized devices within, is not in 14CFR.

"I've seen plenty guys end up with some images of over $1,000 " -- can you possibly correct or clarify this statement?


text:
What do pilots actually see through the windows?
As I have never flown inside a cockpit, but only played with simulators I find that the dashboard takes most of the field of view(or am I wrong?).
So what actually can pilots see given good weather conditions, especially during critical parts of a flight, like take-offs and landings ?
I'm generally interested in big airliners.
P.S. I am not asking if they could takeoff/land without visual contact.

You tagged this [tag:visual-flight-rules], are you interested in VFR/General Aviation or actually commercial airliner?

I will edit my question,  thanks for the suggestion.

I added a question with an impression for a general aviation aircraft nevertheless. I am sure others will be able to provide pictures or references for airliner cockpits. @phantomazi

flight sim displays are not representative generally because the limited screen size and the need to display instruments means little room is leftover  for visuals.  Some get around that with virtual 3d cockpits (x-plane) or by using many monitors or dedicated devices to simulate the avionics.

what do you mean by "big airliners"? is the B767 big enough?

There's a big difference between a sim on a single screen and the real thing, it also depends on the airplane. Look at the difference between a mooney and a slingsby firefly - the mooney has relatively small windows and the firefly has a dome canopy.

When I played simulators, a BIG difference was when I bought some hardware -- the PC screen could be used almost as a windshield, and the point of view was a bit more realistic. Now I'd like to try a virtual reality helmet...

You should look at videos (e.g. on Youtube). Query "cockpit view" or "full flight" or a mix and you will find complete flights, or selected phases. Just a random sample.

Related: How do larger aircraft compensate for reduced visibility from the cockpit?

Having recently had my first flight at the controls of a small aircraft (a Piper Cherokee) I found that the panel in front of me came further up than I expected - it definitely blocked more of my view than the dashboard in a car, particularly downward - but I still had a clear view over a pretty wide range of angles. It is worth noting that I didn't feel like I had to look down as far when checking the instruments as I would when driving a car. Which makes sense, because there's more of them and they take up more space.

Oh, they see birds, and clouds, and tornadoes, and funny little green men in flying saucers... (Johnny, from "Airplane!")

In a document A319/A320/A321 Flight Deck and Systems Briefing for Pilots (can be found in many places on the net, e.g. on slideshare as presentation), or page 16 Airbus shows following diagram of visibility from cockpit:

17 or 20 degrees below horizon is not that bad. It is probably a little less than you see from a typical car, but not by much (of course since the pilots are sitting much higher, the nearest point on pavement is correspondingly further away).
Note, that whether the above is actually true depends on how the pilot adjusts their seat. The recommended height for eyes is marked on the post between the forward windows.

As a side note, a saw in a video once that the MD-80 actually has a sight on the dashboard that you line up with when adjusting your seat so that you get maximum visibility. Always thought that was interesting

@TomMcW, it is not on a dashboard, it is on the post in the middle. It is three balls that you need to see at the same level. All or most aircraft have that.

Here is a random blog post with images of two different seat position sight gauges. I'm not sure what the correct terminology is to search for other images or description, although the ATR-72 Flight Manual has a low-quality description on page 9 if it's of interest.

This really depends on the type of aircraft and the seating position of the pilot. In smaller aircraft, you will have a good view of the area around you, depending on the canopy. In larger aircraft, the instrument panel and cockpit design can restrict your outside view a bit more.
Below you will find two pictures taken from the cockpit of a Super Dimona HK36, used for VFR general aviation flights. Both are approximately at eye level.

(Source: Own Work - SentryRaven)

(Source: Own Work - SentryRaven)

In general, the pilots are required to have good visibility to execute any maneuvers during normal operation of the aircraft. According to Federal Aviation Regulations Part 225, Section 773- Pilot Compartment View, during non-precipitation conditions,

Each pilot compartment must be arranged to give the pilots a sufficiently extensive, clear, and undistorted view, to enable them to safely perform any maneuvers within the operating limitations of the airplane, including taxiing takeoff, approach, and landing

The FAA advisory Circular 25.773-1 Pilot Compartment View design considerations gives certain guidelines for ensuring pilot visibility.

Pilot compartment view from FAA AC 25.773-1 Pilot Compartment View design considerations
The figure shows a pilot compartment view for optimum collision avoidance
when seated in the left (port) seat. For the starboard side, all left/right dimensions are reversed.
Usually, the aircrafts offer better visibility compared to the guidelines. For example, the A330's visibility (from Flight deck and system's briefing) is given here.

Image from A 330 Flight deck and system's briefing
The actual visibility of the pilots will vary according to the seat position For example, the following figure shows the variation in pilot visibility in Boeing 727 when seat position is adjusted.

Image from Airplane Design- Layout Design of Cockpit, Fuselage, Wing and Empennage by Jan Roskam
Of course, the pilots can see things which is normally not visible though the windows through cameras mounted on the outside, like on top of vertical tail in A380.

This might be a stupid answer, but you can see a lot of take-off, landing videos from cockpit in YouTube.
Here's one:

I'll illustrate some aspects which I think even the best flight simulation today cannot compensate:
Peripheral vision
Telling distances and relative positions is much easier. For example, you can tell a certain building is 1000 feet away. When you are landing, you can take a quick glance to either side of the runway and judge whether it is time to flare.
Sitting in the cockpit of a 747 feels rather like standing on top of a 3-story building. The best part is, this building moves! It's truly amazing.
Detailed view
I know this sounds obvious, but I have to put it as number two. Even when you are on final, you can see the little cars with people moving around the ramp and terminal. The cockpit glass is just like the windshield in your car; if you can see something directly, you will see it in the cockpit.
You will also see the small cracks in the windshield, especially when sunlight is directly shinning at it. This is a natural property of the material used.
If you're flying a single-engine propeller plane, your view will be slightly obstructed by the spinning propeller.
Other planes
Spotting other planes in a real cockpit is a bit tricky. If the plane is below you, and you're flying over residential areas with lot of houses, it can be hard to spot.

The difficulty of spotting aircraft is much greater than one would at first imagine, I would absolutely agree.

As stated in the comments, the view you get in a PC based flight simulator is not representative of the real thing. To get a decent approximation of what you actually see from an airliner cockpit you'd need at least 6 screens in 2 rows of 3 screens each.
This of course requires quite a bit of hardware to accomplish :(

Using the virtual cockpit feature of some flight simulator software, and cranking up your viewpoint a bit from the default settings, you can get a much more authentic experience already but it's still limited by the tiny viewport offered by even a larger widescreen computer monitor (let alone a 17" 4:3 display which is what many of them are programmed for as it's the smallest common denominator).
Of course that virtual cockpit has its own drawbacks in that the instruments are often a bit blurry and buttons and knobs less responsive than in the 2D view (let alone reality).
It's a set of compromises we have to live with as PC flyers, dictated by the limitations of our hardware and budgets.

authors: Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні


text:
Are there cameras which can show external components of an airplane to help pilots determine a fault?
Looking at this crash - wiki - my question came up - are there passanger planes, which have real time view of external components like engines, wings and so on, which can eventually help pilots understand what part malfunctioned ? If not what would be a good reason ?
Edit: Please note that I am not looking for planes with cameras used for manoeuvring, but for such pointed towards critical components e.g. engines, so if there is a visible fault (smoke coming out of the engine) the pilots would know the exact failed component/part of it.

I'm fairly certain that ability would actually be detrimental to the work of flying the plane. There are many documented cases of pilots landing planes with what look like horrible damage. If they saw the damage it could stifle their ability to perform checklist tasks to determine if the plane CAN fly, regardless of the damage incurred.

@Simon not exactly, check out my edit :)

Not a camera, but the Cessna Skymaster push-pull has mirrors so the pilot can see whether the rear engine is spinning or not.

A camera would not have really helped in that accident. The issue was not that it was impossible to diagnose the problem from the available instruments, it was that the pilots failed check all of them properly.

Maybe the question would be less theoretical if you could provide an example of incident/accident where the camera would have changed the situation and the outcome.

External cameras for diagnosing aircraft issues are not used on any current aircraft. As mentioned in another answer and question, some aircraft do have external cameras, but these are more for maneuvering on the ground.
One reason for this is that cheap, high definition cameras that can stream directly to a monitor in the cockpit are a fairly recent invention. Previously, such an addition would have been fairly heavy and expensive to add to an aircraft. As mentioned, some newer aircraft that have digital cockpit displays do have external cameras for other purposes. However, even in aircraft with cameras, they are generally not used for diagnosing issues.
A lot of aircraft issues, especially with engines, are not readily visible from the outside. Internally placed sensors are still much better at detecting issues. Landing gear in particular may appear to be extended but not locked properly. Pilots are more concerned with how functional something is. Modern aircraft are equipped with hundreds of sensors and these are designed to give the pilots all the information they need about the functionality of the aircraft. These sensors are much more simple and precise than a camera. External cameras may give a misleading picture of the aircraft's state, and decisions lean towards an abundance of caution. Unless there is some extremely obvious discrepancy, it's unlikely that a camera will be trusted over the sensors.
Of course there are still incidents such as fuel leaks and fires that external cameras would help to identify. However, the aircraft sensors should be able to detect these issues once they are serious enough. Pilots also get information from passengers/crew in the cabin, and from external observers in other aircraft or air traffic control. Cameras are also limited in where they can be placed to provide a good view of things, and how well they will perform at night or in bad weather.
There may be a general case for cameras being helpful in identifying issues, but these situations are rare enough that is is hard to justify the expense. If something is enough of a risk that you need to point a camera at it, you're better off just fixing it so it's less of a risk.

If something is enough of a risk that you need to point a camera at it, you're better off just fixing it so it's less of a risk.  This.  I work on a lot of industrial automation equipment and the only time I've ever really felt the need to have cameras watching things is during process development - it's a tool that can be helpful for ironing out bugs, especially in a fast-paced, agile development environment.  For something that has to be as bulletproof as an aircraft, this work had damned well better be done already.  The right sensor will always be better than a camera.

There's one situation I can think of where I might want a camera:  gear's down and the lock indicators haven't come on.  Is the light not working, or is the gear not locked?
A camera might save you a low pass and some heartburn.  And might've saved Eastern Air 401, though that really goes back to a CRM problem.

The A380 has a camera mounted in the tail that provides a view of the top of the aircraft as well as the upper surface of the plane. Apparently it's there to help navigate at airports, you can sort of see it here

(source)
There seem to be a few other planes that offer this according to this thread

A330-200
A330-300
A340-300
A340-500
A340-600
A380
B777-300ER

I'm not sure where this feed is bussed to but I assume they can bring it up on their flight displays.
A great deal can also be seen from out the windows of the plane as well.
Keep in mind that it's only recently that camera and display technology has shrunk to its modern size. Many planes out there were designed in the late 70's or 80's. Having full frame video feeds in that time would have required bulky equipment that costs you weight and power. It should also be noted that cameras like this would be ineffective in clouds with little to no visibility as well as at night (although we are making progress on that front). The outside of a plane is not really lit up that well so a camera would not see much at night.
As for using them in fault procedures this is a mixed bag and in some cases an opinion on if it will help or hurt the situation. For what it's worth the only key surfaces that you can't see through the windows are most of the empennage and the underside of the wings/underbelly of the craft as well as part of the engines. When it comes to the rudder and elevators a camera may help you determine if a control surface experiences an inadvertent deflection or becomes unresponsive to control input. It will also show any surface damage to the unit. Likewise with the wings you will be able to see any damage to the lower parts of the wings, however most control surfaces can be seen through the windows. To play the other side some might argue that cameras would be distracting in an emergency and pilots should not be trying to determine what they can see when they should be flying the plane. Others of course may say that if they can see a control surface is not properly actuating they may be better able to provide the proper correction.

Fully agree with you about it being a recent technology, but still I think even for flights when there is sufficient light conditions this may be useful enough to prevent possible loss of lives. The main point is that these cameras should show the failing components, instead of point-of-view useful for taxiing, as I doubt this one will be handy in such a situation(feel free to prove me wrong here ! )

Typo my apologies - edited

I flew with Malaysian earlier this year and the passengers were able to view the feed from this camera!

I remember a vivid discussion about the A380 camera when it was proposed, and that some people said it should only be available when not in flight just like a dvd system in a car. I have no idea how the actual decision turned out...

They already do.
A light sensor is a camera which transmits just one pixel of information. The same goes for a thermal sensor, instead of transmitting an infrared thermal image of many thousands of pixels, it only sends one pixel of thermal information each time it cycles.
And that pixel itself could contain many different values. In some cases, it could store lots of information about light and color. And in some other cases, depending on the sensor itself, it could also just store one bit of information, a one or a zero. And of course, not all sensors use the light spectrum. The are various other sensors capable of other things.
Reducing the amount of information to the most relevant part helps pilots avoid cognitive overload, but having less real-time data also makes it easier to record the raw data over the life time of the airplane (or at least until it crashes).
And yes, sensors can malfunction just like cameras can malfunction, but they can also be redundant in their function and more precise in what problems they may be trying to pinpoint. So if one sensor malfunctions, other sensors may be able to double check the same functionality in other ways.

This raises a philosophical question - how many radiation sensors are needed before the array is a camera?


text:
Which came to be first - bigger airplanes, or longer runways?
I'm generally speaking about airports with runways long enough for airliners, be historic or still in use. In order not to turn this question to a chicken-egg discussion, here are my points:

Would making an airport(s) before making the actual airplanes be
feasible and cost-efficient ?
Will new(and more runway-length
demanding) airplanes be able to take-off from shorter runways,
because there are no other options ?

I'm generally interested in historic terms, which came to be first - bigger airplanes, or longer runways ?

Care to explain the downvote, Mr/Mrs serial-downvoter ?

Agree with @Phantomazi. It is an interesting question..

The plane first. The runway is kept lengthening because of strategic bombers in WWII, the Jet airliners, as well as the jumbo 747. Sometimes smaller plane is developed for shorter runway, like DC-10

I think you should rephrase the question based on your last point: Which came to be first - bigger airplanes, or longer runways?

@PaulRedmond good point!

It is the larger aircraft that came first. Historically, the runway length (and design) of an airport has depended on the aircraft operating there (among other things), though this is changing. For example, the Prague airport site:

The main runways – RWY 04/22 and RWY 13/31 – were continually lengthened during post WW II operations which kept them in line with the demands of the aviation industry until the mid 1960s...

The runway required for the aircraft depends on the take-off weight and the lesser runway length restricts the payload or range. As a result, for economical operation, the runway needs to be longer.
However, there are other constraints to consider:

For large aircraft, the runway (and taxiway) width, apron and parking space are important considerations. In most cases, lengthening the runway will be easier than taking care of these other constraints.
In the end, airports have to weigh the benefits of letting heavier aircraft operate against the resources required for runway lengthening. For major airports (like Heathrow, for example), the cost of runway expansion will run into the billions.
Unless the aircraft is going to be operated regularly (which depends on how many airports it can land), there is no point in lengthening the runway in an airport.
The economic operation of the aircraft has to be considered. For example, the A380 was designed around a 80m 'box', which the airlines had decided is the maximum size they can operate economically.
A bigger aircraft does not mean more runway required. For example, the A380 requires (slightly) lesser runway compared to 747-400.

If it comes to that, aircraft requiring more runway can takeoff from smaller ones. For example, a Boeing Dreamlifter once took off from a 6000 ft runway (it normally requires > 9000ft).

The airports with longest runways have them for different reasons- the Qamdo Bamda Airport (5500m runway) has a long runway due to its elevation (>4300m above MSL), while the Ramenskoye Airport as a long runway (5400m) due to the aircraft operated there; it was a test facility, for among other things, the Soviet Buran spacecraft.

Where does the cost of extending runways of Heathrow and other major airports come from?

The biggest airplanes first used water for taking off and landing, and only later were similarly sized land airplanes built. Bigger airplanes tend to have a higher wing loading and so require longer runways.
The Caproni Ca.60 was the biggest aircraft of its time (1921) and is still bigger than a Jumbo Jet if you use wing area to measure size. It could only be built as a flying boat.

Caproni Ca.60 (picture source)
Another biggest aircraft of its time was the Dornier Do-X from 1929. On one occasion it carried 169 people into the air, including one stowaway. Its regular capacity of 60 to 100 passengers would only be surpassed in the jet age.

Dornier Do-X in flight (picture source). This one actually flew, but was hampered by the small aircraft engines which were available at its time.
Flying boats were also used on the first transatlantic and transpacific routes, and to connect the parts of the British Empire by air, Imperial Airways used a fleet of floatplanes and flying boats. Routes were strung along lakes as staging points.

Short Empire as operated by Imperial Airways (picture source)
Long runways were only built during the second World War when the weight and speed advantage of land airplanes made them the preferred choice for bombers. With the runways in place, flying boats soon disappeared.

That plane... just... mind blowing. Difficult, nay, almost impossible to fathom that it actually made it off the ground. Er, water...

@FreeMan: Absolutely! On the first flight it pitched up uncontrollably and crashed. It was not stable in pitch - a huge waste and a monument to the hybris of its creator.

@FreeMan: Oops, just found out that Wikipedia counts the brief liftoff during one of the ground runs as the first flight, so it crashed on the second flight according to the official source of all wisdom on the Net.

Well, Peter, that's an important distinction!  :)  (And, due to edits, my original comment is in reference to the original picture - the Caproni Ca.60, just in case there was any question.)

The bigger airplanes came first. A shortish runway length is not preventing bigger planes to operate, but it limits the take-off weight, especially in warm weather.
Since a lower take-off weight means less payload, the business case to extend runways became obvious. So airports follow suit.


text:
Do airlines prefer younger pilots after a cpl?
I am currently 26, female and making financial arrangements to pursue a cpl after 2 years. The location probably will be Canada or USA. I am wondering if 29 is too late for commercial airlines. Do the airlines prefer younger pilots? Is there a max age limit for commercial airlines?
Thanks for the help.
Cheers,
Litali

You want to take a look at this video

Yeah, I think the questions linked by Simon covers this pretty well, and it sounds like age shouldn't be a factor really.  Good luck :)

DO NOT DO IT.  Save that money.  Buy a rental property.  Get a "real" (engineering, hard science, business as a worst case) degree from a good school.  Almost anything is better than sinking your cash into a CPL to pursue an airline career these days.  Seriously, invest that money into revenue generating assets or into yourself.  In a few years you'll be able to get your PPL, buy your own plane, and fly on your schedule.  I was a commercial pilot in my past life (early-mid 20s).  I got an MBA, quit flying (not furloughed), got a desk job, and bought a plane.  Best decision I ever made.

29 is not too late for them. It might be too late for you, depending on where you are in your life now.
First off, a CPL won't cut it to fly for most Part 121 or Part 135 outfits, including major airlines, cargo haulers etc. As of 2013, the requirements to get on the flight deck of a commercial airliner include an ATPL, which requires a minimum of 1500 hours (1000 if you attend a four-year flight school).
A CPL, with instrument rating and an endorsement to ferry passengers for hire, would allow you to fly for a company like NetJets, or for a corporate or government jet fleet, though you'll face stiff competition for those jobs; they're fairly cushy and well-paid for the required experience, and you'll find a lot of ex-military and ex-airline pilots beating down the door. You'd also be able to fly foreign-registered aircraft for a non-US airline, as long as the jurisdiction hasn't adopted a similar rule as the FAA's.
When you get your ATPL, with only the 1500 hours and no other airline experience, you'll likely land your first gig as First Officer on a regional route. This is your toehold into a career in flying, and to be perfectly honest if you don't absolutely love to fly I would tell you to do anything else, especially if you've already started a life (married, kids, mortgage). The average starting salary for a regional FO is about \$22,500 per year, which for a 40 hour work week is a meager \$10.75 an hour. You would literally make more working full-time as a barista in Sea-Tac Airport serving coffee to the pilots than flying the puddle-jump between there and Portland. And that's just the average; you can expect half the currently flying pilots with less than 1 year experience to make less than that. You are virtually guaranteed to make more money doing anything else that requires more than a high school diploma.
It gets better, but it takes a career to do it. Senior captains flying the big widebodies on major transcontinental and intercontinental routes make six figures, in excess of \$175k in some cases. Most of this is the airlines trying to retain their most experienced pilots for just a little longer by giving them the most profitable routes for which they can pay the pilots more. The other part is making up for the peanuts they pay you in your early years.
For the majority of your career, your entire life will fit in a carryon and/or a garment bag; flying regionals, you'll make the same flight five to ten times a day and have a good chance to get back to your home city, but on regional pay you'll be hard-pressed to afford more than a single-bedroom flat. As your experience grows, your promotions will naturally lead to longer flights on bigger jets, with the best-paying routes being intercontinental flights where you'll sleep on the plane two nights out of three. Many pilots have month-to-month arrangements with their landlords to rent a single room to crash in and store anything that doesn't fit in their flight bag. This will be your life for 20-30 years.
It is extremely common for newly retired pilots and their spouses to invest in a "pilot's house"; while most retirees are downsizing from the house they raised kids in, most pilots are finally able to settle down in one location for the first time in their lives, and are buying McMansions in cash at about that same age, with savings from the last few years of their flying career.
All in all, flying sounds like a glamorous, "see the world" job, but you have to be sure you can live with the downsides. Your spouse will essentially be a single parent (if you have kids), you'll be living in a small apartment for most of your life and will move several times, requiring your spouse to have a career that allows easy relocation, and you might only be home every other day if not less often, depending on the airline's scheduling model; it's fairly common especially among LCCs to run "end-to-end" routes instead of "hub and spoke", and that could mean you'll start in New York, run hops through Chicago, Atlanta and Dallas with your eight hours allowable flight time per day, then sleep in Dallas and fly the reverse route the next day back to New York.
Just to make a direct comparison, my wife has a cosmetology license (haircuts, nails, spa treatments) in Texas. To get that license required a 2-year course of study and 1500 hours total instruction and guided practice. Her first year with that license, she made about $33000, almost 50% more than a first-year airline pilot. The economics of the airline industry (and the regulations in the cosmetology industry) are bass-ackwards.

the requirement of ATPL to pilot an airliner, that is US specific i guess? From EASA the requirement is frozen ATPL

It's U.S.-specific, but it means if you're going to fly an airliner into U.S. airspace, even for a non-U.S. carrier, you have to have an ATPL. Not having one is going to limit your options with a Canadian airline as a lot of its business will be flying to U.S. airports, though you could fly intercons practically anywhere else in the world as well as domestic/regional hops that don't cross the 45th Parallel.

@KeithS Are you sure this applies to non-U.S.-flagged carriers flying into U.S. airspace? If you have a regulation citation for that, it would be great if you could post an answer to this question. The only existing answer suggests the opposite, but with no official source.

I'm not 100% sure on that, tbh. It's obvious that when non-U.S. carriers are in U.S. airspace, they have to abide by FAA regs on flight procedures regardless of their country of origin. Certification requirements are one of the most basic sets of regulations in the U.S., but it's also one of the more localized facets of international air transit law.

Further reading suggests I was wrong; the rule requiring an ATPL only applies to pilots of N-numbered airliners. Not having an ATPL would still preclude employment for any airline with an FAA AOC.

Wow, that puts a tarnish on the gilt-edged life many think pilots live. :(

@KeithS great to know, thanks!


text:
What is the make and the model of this seaplane?
What is the model of this seaplane?

This is a Progressive Aerodyne SeaRey, a kit aircraft. Also on:

Wikipedia and
Youtube.

About 500 of this make had been built up to 2011 according to the Wikipedia article.

(Source: Light Sport Hangar Flyin')
This one is seemingly registered in the Philippines ("RP"), I read that at some point experimental aircraft had been grounded in the Philippines, but don't know if this was temporary only.


text:
What are the effects of crosswind on takeoff?
What is the specific aerodynamic effect which requires one to hold into-wind aileron to keep the wings level during takeoff in a B737? (i.e. dihedral or sweep)
Subsequently, what is the aerodynamic reason for having to increase that into- wind aileron input immediately after Takeoff.

I am not sure I have any idea about what you are talking about.

I am referring to a crosswind takeoff situation where one has to hold the aileron down into the wind during the takeoff roll. Then after takeoff one has to increase the aileron input or the aircraft will roll rapidly downwind?

@Minimax1 Typically you decrease the aileron input as airspeed increases, perhaps that's causing some confusion? Although I know nothing about B737s, so I have no idea what crosswind techniques to use in one.

I second Pondlife.  I have never heard of increasing aileron input for crosswind correction after liftoff.  May be a point of confusion.

The upwind aileron is held down in order to keep the crosswind from pushing the airplane downwind. This is called crosswind drift. Usually the aileron begins fully deflected and reduced as it becomes more effective with increased airspeed. Upwind elevator is coupled with downwind rudder, which keeps the airplane in the centerline.
When I have taken off in a glider with a very strong crosswind, I have started the roll all the way on the downwind side of the runway and taken off diagonally upwind in order to  to reduce the crosswind component.

When a crosswind hits an aircraft it affects the windward side more because the fuselage shadows the leeward wing. Therefore, what happens is that the wind tends to lift up the wing on the windward side. This only happens when the plane is on the ground because what happens is that the wind fills the space between the ground and the wing and pressurizes this area. This pressurization is called ground effect. If the wind is a headwind (such as when landing), then the area under both wings is equally pressurized, but if there is a crosswind, then the windward side will be pressurized harder and tend to lift up the wing. In such cases the pilot needs to use the aelirons to counteract that effect.
Note that any upgust can have a similar effect. For example, when landing on a windy day, the wind will hit the ground and move upwards creating upgusts. These can hit your wing and flip you over, if the aircraft is light. Therefore, when landing a pilot will always be wing down to the wind.

Thanks Tyler. What about the necessity to increase that aileron input to prevent aircraft roll after rotation?

@Minimax1 Even in a small plane, crosswind has less effect when taking off because the aircraft is moving faster.


text:
What exactly is tower enroute control? Is this similar to 'preferred routes'?
I am reading about 'Tower Enroute Control' and I saw this on wikipedia "Tower en-route control is a collection of published low-altitude, short-distance IFR routes through large metropolitan areas that require no level of air traffic control higher than approach-control facilities" I also see that you can get these out of the A/FD.
My question is when do you use tower en-route control? Is it commonly used or rarely used? How is an IFR flight different when on a tower en-route control flight then on say, a preferred route?

Tower enroute control is similar to the preferred route in that both are designed to improve the system effeciency. FAA defines the Tower En  Route Control (TEC) (in AIM section 4-1-19) as:

TEC is an ATC program to provide a service to aircraft proceeding to and from metropolitan areas. It links designated Approach Control Areas by a network of identified routes made up of the existing airway structure of the National Airspace System.

Preferred routes, on the other hand (from Instrument Procedures Handbook) are defined as:

Preferred IFR routes are established between busier airports to increase system efficiency and capacity. They normally extend through one or more ARTCC areas and are designed to  achieve  balanced  traffic  flows  among  high  density terminals.

This outlines one of the major differences between the two: in TEC route, you never 'talk' to the ARTCC. As flyingmag notes:

TEC flights are intended to be relatively short — generally two hours or less, and are conducted below 10,000 feet. Throughout the route, communications are managed through tower controllers, and departure and approach controllers at a TRACON facility. You will never talk to ARTCC.

Another important thing is that the TEC is essentially equivalent of getting a pop-up IFR clearance, as already noted (from AIM section 4-1-19):

There are no unique requirements upon pilots to use the TEC program. Normal flight plan filing procedures will ensure proper flight plan processing. Pilots should include the acronym “TEC” in the remarks section of the flight plan when requesting tower en route control.

The TEC is established only in areas with Radar coverage. US DoT WP AT 7110.5A specifically notes:

TEC should be established/expanded only within areas of radar coverage. In areas without radar coverage ... an equivalent level of safety is maintained, TEC may be established and/or expanded.

TECs basically are published preferred IFR routes that are entirely in TRACON airspace. As a result, most of the TECs are in the northeast and the west coast (which can be found here), where the airspaces are close enough that one can fly with Radar coverage the whole way.

So is TEC something internal to ATC that I as a pilot don't have to worry about? It's not like there are TEC routes...are there?

Sounds like TEC would cover KORD to KIND to KCVG (among many, many others), correct?

@jskypilot Yes, there are specific, published TEC routes. They're listed in the back of the Chart Supplement, if they exist in a region - some parts of the country have no TEC routes.

@FreeMan At present there are no published TEC routes in the midwest, so no... you could not use TEC to get from KORD-KIND-KCVG.

@TrevorJohns "Sounds like TEC would cover..." (emphasis added) - in a theoretical sense. ;)


text:
What is the rescue arrow decal on a military jet pointing to?
I've noticed that a lot of military jets often have an arrow decal with the wording "RESCUE" pointing to a rectangle of some sort. I tried looking around for information about it but I could not find anything. What is the purpose of that rectangle the arrow points to?
The other decals seem to be much clearer: e.g. the red triangles are usually ejection seat warning labels and jet intake danger labels.
My own guess is that it is a button/switch device to trigger explosive bolts on the canopy or another mechanism. If so, what does it look like and how does it function? A close-up and a detailed example would be useful.

That's where the onboard hamster lives.  In the event of an emergency, you need to pop out the box and rescue him.  Well, at least that's what my kids told me.

Pictures embedded in this question are showing as broken. (At least to me, behind a corporate firewall)

It's a small door leading to a compartment which contains a handle on a reeled lanyard.  When fully extended, the handle and lanyard activate the pyrotechnic charges which jettison the canopy or other enclosure over the flight crew stations, facilitating rescue.

The arrow may also just point towards the external canopy latch in order to expedite cockpit access and rescue.

I assume the 9 feet requirement is to ensure the rescuers are a safe distance away when the canopy is jettisoned?

Yes, but it's also a handy reference of how much you'll have to pull out. If you're a rescuer in a hurry and pull the cord, and it snags at 2 feet, then you'll know it wasn't enough and either to pull harder or start alternate rescue methods.

See a description of the mechanism inside. I was not able to find an image free of rights and as good as this stock one. Best pick.

According to NATOPS U.S. NAVY AIRCRAFT EMERGENCY RESCUE INFORMATION MANUAL NAVAIR 00‐80R‐14-1, the actual concern here is to disarm the ejection seats so that the rescue crew can safely extract the aircrew. While I would imagine that different manufacturers have different ways to build it into their aircraft, I also assume that like all emergency mechanisms, it's operation should be simple and obvious once you open the panel, and most likely has a clear and explicit instruction to pull a handle or flip a switch, or something similar. Safe-ing the seats will allow the rescue crew to then work in the cockpit area without the danger of a rescuer or injured aircrew activating the ejection mechanisms and making everyone's day even worse.

I would expect this is correct. When airbags first came out, some fire departments that hadn't had training on them yet encountered some nasty surprises. I saw a training video once of a paramedic being ejected from a vehicle by an airbag when the FD accidentally triggered it while cutting open the dashboard to free the patient. If you imagine a vehicle after a crash as a crumpled pile of metal that has to be cut apart to free the occupants, you can see why using hydraulic tools to cut through twisted bits of entanglement could easily set off lurking pyrotechnics.

A pretty sensible approach to safety: label everything in English and then deploy to Irak, Afghanistan, ... :-)

authors: Счастливый Инцидент


text:
I have an Australian CPL, what do I need to fly in Indonesia?
If I have an Australian CPL can I fly in Indonesia?
How likely am I to obtain employment if I have 250 hrs. flight in Indonesia?